Where Have The Good Men Gone?

Where Have The Good Men Gone?

An interesting article brought to my attention by blogger Brett Mckay at the Art of Manliness. (His response to the article can be found here.) There are many excellent points that I agree with in the article. Towards the end, however, it devolves from a relatively accurate critique of maledom in modern society, to, well... a roast at best. The article is quick to point out flaws, and slow to offer solutions.

And the tone of the article is readily apparent at the outset. One glance at the graphic splashed across the top of the page makes it clear what the author thinks of American males.

There are two things I find inherently fascinating about this article. One, is the blatantly chauvinistic perspective. Because that's what it is. Go through, and read the article. Now go through, and read the article again, but reverse all the gender specific words, woman for man, man for woman, etc. You'll see exactly what I mean.

The premise of the article starts out that there has been a drastic decline in the expectations for young men, that manhood is in disarray, is currently juvenile, etc. Yet, it goes on to speak of the irrelevance of manhood in modern society. No, not in so many words, but the intent is there. Quoted from the article:

What explains this puerile shallowness? I see it as an expression of our cultural uncertainty about the social role of men. It's been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.

Fortitude is irrelevant? Courage is irrelevant? Fidelity is irrelevant? The author slams the state of young men's maturity compared to men of old, then goes right on to slam her comparative point of reference. Indeed, I wish I could ask the author, what is a good man then? Currently, my generation (according to the author) is writhing in irrelevant depravity. Yet, those role models we think of when we think of 'manhood' and 'manly values', we immediately write off as irrelevant as relics of the past. Indeed the whole tone of the article seems to be that of the dominance of woman. It might be summed of as, "Men wallow in irrelevance like pigs because, well, they are."


What a sad, and dare I say sexist, view of society.


My second major problem with the article can be found in the above quote. Since when are virtues like fortitude, courage, and fidelity irrelevant? It makes me wonder what other virtues she might have written off. What about honesty? Is that an irrelevant relic of the past? How embarrassing is duty? Should we hide any sense of honor we have under the rug? 


While the overall conclusion of the article I find as fruitless criticism offering no solutions, the writing off of virtues as 'obsolete, even a little embarrassing' I think is down right shameful. Virtues are wholly relevant today, to men and women. We should be encourage a virtuous, industrious society in both men and women, not damning virtues as embarrassing. Virtues that have been revered by mankind literally for thousands of years.

We shouldn't be ashamed to claim a virtuous manhood, and strive toward that goal. We should be ashamed to write off the current generation of young men as irrelevant, to leave them to wallow. We should be ashamed, because instead of trying to revive honorable manhood in America, we allow manhood itself to wallow.

But perhaps we can't do that because shame is something that's obsolete, and just a little too embarrassing to acknowledge.